25/07/2026
*DISSENTING JUDGMENT:*
*THE LONELY VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS*
An Excerpt from the Full Chapter
*By Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye* *Olujobi, CRJ*
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all My Lords and legal luminaries in the temple of justice—those still serving and those who have retired, the living and those who have passed on—from the highest judicial officer to the humblest court clerk.
By ordinary human standards, I may not be considered qualified to stand before such distinguished minds.
I am not qualified to rise and utter a word while the court is in session. Yet one thing is certain: by grace and circumstance, I have gained access to My Lords in their chambers, access to the courts and, most importantly, access to court records.
One truth about judicial records is that they do not die.
Records preserve the voices of people long after the courtroom has become silent. They carry the testimonies of accused persons, the arguments of counsel, the reasoning of judges, the pain of victims and the unanswered cries of those who may have suffered injustice.
The prison is like a graveyard. Many people enter it and disappear from public attention.
Their voices become faint, their names are forgotten and their stories are buried beneath the weight of conviction.
Whenever I enter a court registry to obtain a Certified True Copy of a judgment or other court records, and I see the registers and case files arranged in orderly rows upon the shelves, my heart is deeply stirred.
Each file contains a life.
Each register contains a story.
Each judgment carries consequences that may continue for decades.
Whenever I begin to read those records, it is as though I hear a voice crying in the wilderness:
“Justice! Justice!! Justice for the oppressed!”
Sometimes, however, I realise that the loudest cry heard before God may not be the voice of the prisoner. It may be the voice of the prisoner’s mother or father—the cry of parents who go to bed every night carrying the burden of a child behind prison walls.
The prisoner may have become accustomed to suffering. He may have lost the strength to cry or surrendered himself to despair. Yet somewhere outside the prison walls, an aged mother is still praying. A father is still asking questions. A wife is still waiting. Children are still wondering when their parent will return home.
Those voices may never appear in the official proceedings of the court, but they rise before the throne of God.
*WHEN ONE JUDGE HEARS* *ANOTHER VOICE*
Sometimes, in the midst of a majority judgment, one judge hears what others have not heard.
One judge sees the doubt that others have overlooked. One judge identifies a weakness in the evidence and refuses to follow the majority merely for the sake of uniformity.
That judge may stand alone. The opinion may not carry the day. The accused may still be convicted, and the appeal may still be dismissed.
_Nevertheless, the dissenting judgment remains in the record—a lonely voice in the wilderness, waiting for a future generation to listen.
_
A dissenting judgment is the opinion of a judge who disagrees with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court. It does not ordinarily determine the immediate outcome of the case, but it remains permanently within the judicial record.
A majority judgment may bring a case to an end while leaving important questions unanswered. A dissenting judgment may preserve another judicial answer to those questions.
It may expose weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, identify a legal principle that has been wrongly applied, question the reliability of a confession, draw attention to contradictions in the testimony of witnesses or warn that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been satisfied.
The fact that several judges agree does not automatically make their conclusion infallible. In the same way, the fact that one judge disagrees does not necessarily make that judge wrong.
Judges are human beings, and human beings may honestly differ in their interpretation of the facts, the evidence and the law.
In criminal justice, such disagreement deserves special attention because the consequences of error may be irreversible. A person may lose liberty, spend decades in prison or be sentenced to death.
Where one member of an appellate panel finds that the evidence is unsafe, that the requirements of the law have not been satisfied or that the conviction should not stand, that disagreement should not be treated as an insignificant footnote.
It may be a warning.
It may be an invitation to examine the record again.
It may be the first judicial recognition that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
*THE CASE OF OLUSOLA* *ADEPETU*
The case of Olusola Adepetu v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC.176/1997, reported as (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 and (1998) 7 SC (Pt. I) 117, demonstrates how a dissenting judgment may become a powerful instrument of lawful advocacy.
Olusola Adepetu was convicted and sentenced to death in connection with the death of his girlfriend, Miss Ranti Moradeyo.
The case became widely associated in public discussion with ritual killing, although the medical evidence showed that no part of the deceased’s body had been removed.
His appeal eventually reached the Supreme Court. On 10 July 1998, the majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed his conviction. However, the dissenting opinion preserved an alternative judicial examination of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.
When the Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation began examining the case, many people were unwilling to listen. The majority judgments appeared to have brought the matter to a final conclusion.
However, the dissenting judgment drew attention to important weaknesses in the case, including the medical evidence. What had previously been dismissed as the argument of an advocate was now supported by the independent reasoning of a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The dissent did not automatically reverse the judgment or establish his innocence. It did, however, confirm that the concerns raised about the evidence were not merely emotional objections from an outside advocate. A Justice of the Supreme Court had also examined the record and reached a different conclusion.
The dissent became a lawful instrument of advocacy.
It became the lawful weapon with which we confronted a long-held public opinion.
After spending twenty-six years in prison, Olusola Adepetu eventually regained his freedom on 16 October 2016.
The majority judgment ended the appeal, but the dissenting judgment opened another chapter in the search for justice. The case could travel no higher within the judicial system, but the dissent remained alive in the court record and became a foundation for lawful advocacy, public reconsideration and eventual mercy.
*THE CASE OF SUNDAY JACKSON*
A more recent illustration can be found in Sunday Jackson v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC/CR/1026/2022.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment on 7 March 2025. By a majority decision, it upheld Sunday Jackson’s conviction and death sentence for culpable homicide punishable with death. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju delivered a dissenting judgment and would have allowed the appeal.
The case arose from a violent encounter on farmland. Jackson maintained that he had been attacked with a dagger, that he disarmed his attacker during the struggle and that he acted in self-defence.
The majority concluded that, after Jackson had disarmed his attacker, the immediate danger had ended and that the force he subsequently used was excessive.
Justice Ogunwumiju disagreed. Her dissent preserved another judicial interpretation of the evidence and the law. She considered the realities confronting a person already involved in a violent and life-threatening struggle and concluded that the circumstances supported Jackson’s plea of self-defence.
Although the dissent did not determine the immediate outcome of the appeal, it kept the legal and moral questions surrounding the conviction alive. It provided a strong foundation for continuing public advocacy and appeals for executive mercy.
On 23 December 2025, the Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, granted Sunday Jackson a state pardon after he had spent more than a decade in custody.
The dissent did not itself open the prison gate. The formal act that secured his freedom was executive mercy. Nevertheless, the dissent helped preserve the questions that advocacy later carried before the public and the appropriate authorities.
That is one of the enduring purposes of dissent: it ensures that the judgment which prevailed is not the only judicial voice preserved for history.
Olusola Adepetu gained freedom after twenty-six years.
Sunday Jackson gained freedom after more than a decade.
In both cases, dissent preserved a judicial voice upon which sustained advocacy could build.
*WHY DISSENT MUST BE ENCOURAGED*
Dissent should be encouraged within the judiciary, particularly in difficult criminal cases where the evidence, reasoning or application of the law is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation.
The majority will ultimately have its way because judicial decisions are determined by the greater number. However, the fact that the majority controls the outcome should not prevent each member of the panel from undertaking a critical and independent examination of the record.
Where several judges are considering the same appeal, each judge must be free to examine the evidence from another perspective, question assumptions that others may have accepted, identify contradictions that may have been overlooked and determine whether the prosecution truly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Such independence should not be regarded as rebellion, disloyalty or an attack upon fellow judges. It should be recognised as an expression of judicial courage, intellectual honesty and freedom of conscience.
A judge who dissents does not necessarily claim superior wisdom over the majority. The judge simply preserves another line of reasoning for the record.
That reasoning may later assist a higher court, future judges, legal scholars, defence counsel, Attorneys-General, Boards of Mercy, innocence organisations or other lawful authorities examining whether justice was truly done.
The absence of dissent in every case may create the impression that all members of the court reached precisely the same conclusion without uncertainty. Yet difficult criminal cases frequently contain conflicting evidence, questionable confessions, doubtful identification, missing witnesses, incomplete medical evidence or unresolved contradictions.
In such circumstances, independent judicial reflection should be welcomed.
Encouraging principled dissent preserves the collective wisdom of the judiciary. It ensures that the official record contains not only the reasoning that prevailed but also the strongest argument against it.
The majority judgment determines the immediate fate of the case. The dissenting judgment preserves the possibility that another interpretation may be wiser, safer and more consistent with justice.
True judicial harmony does not mean that every judge must think alike. It means that judges may disagree respectfully, reason independently and remain united in their commitment to justice.
*DISSENT AND THE INTELLECTUAL LABOUR OF* *DEFENCE COUNSEL*
A principled dissent also preserves the intellectual labour of defence counsel.
In many criminal proceedings, counsel may present brilliant arguments arising directly from the record, only to have those submissions rejected by the majority.
The lawyer must bow respectfully and say:
“ *As the Court pleases.”*
Yet the lawyer may leave the courtroom carrying the pain of unanswered questions and the burden of knowing that another person’s liberty or life is at stake.
A dissenting judgment may bring relief to that professional and intellectual pain. It may confirm that the submissions were not empty, frivolous or misplaced. It may demonstrate that at least one member of the court carefully considered the arguments and found sufficient reason to disagree with the majority.
The dissent therefore preserves not only the conscience of the judge and the voice of the accused but also the intellectual contribution of the lawyer who stood in defence of liberty.
A dissenting judgment may not open the prison gate on the day it is delivered.
But it can preserve the key that may one day open that gate.
The dissent gives the accused a voice. It gives the judge freedom of conscience. It recognises the intellectual labour of defence counsel. It preserves the wisdom and credibility of the judiciary.
Above all, it gives future generations an opportunity to discover that the argument which failed yesterday may contain the truth required for justice tomorrow.
A dissenting judgment is therefore sometimes more than a minority opinion.
It is the lonely voice in the wilderness crying:
“Examine the record again. Do not allow finality to bury the truth. Justice has not yet finished speaking.”
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This publication is only an excerpt from the full chapter.
The complete chapter develops twelve principal arguments on the significance of dissenting judgments in criminal justice, their limitations, their value to the judiciary and their potential role in identifying and correcting miscarriages of justice.
The full chapter is reserved for publication in my forthcoming book:
Miscarriages of Justice: A Global Injustice
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
Should dissenting judgments be more strongly encouraged in difficult criminal appeals, particularly where the life or liberty of an accused person is at stake?
Have you encountered a case in which a dissenting judgment later proved wiser than the majority judgment?
Please read, reflect and drop your opinion.
Do you know someone who should read this? Please share it with them.
Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi, CRJ
Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation
ABOUT THE ORGANISATION
Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation (CJMR) is a grassroots organisation dedicated to advocating for inmates who may have been wrongfully convicted across custodial centres in South-West Nigeria.
Through case review, access to court records, legal advocacy, public awareness, petitions and rehabilitation support, CJMR works to ensure that credible claims of injustice are not forgotten.
Website: www.cjmr.com.ng
Telephone: +234 803 048 8093
REFERENCES
1. Sunday Jackson v. The State: dissenting opinion of Ogunwumiju, JSC. View source
2.
2. Report on the pardon granted to Sunday Jackson in December 2025. View source
*DISSENTING JUDGMENT:*
*THE LONELY VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS*
An Excerpt from the Full Chapter
*By Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye* *Olujobi, CRJ*
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all My Lords and legal luminaries in the temple of justice—those still serving and those who have retired, the living and those who have passed on—from the highest judicial officer to the humblest court clerk.
By ordinary human standards, I may not be considered qualified to stand before such distinguished minds.
I am not qualified to rise and utter a word while the court is in session. Yet one thing is certain: by grace and circumstance, I have gained access to My Lords in their chambers, access to the courts and, most importantly, access to court records.
One truth about judicial records is that they do not die.
Records preserve the voices of people long after the courtroom has become silent. They carry the testimonies of accused persons, the arguments of counsel, the reasoning of judges, the pain of victims and the unanswered cries of those who may have suffered injustice.
The prison is like a graveyard. Many people enter it and disappear from public attention.
Their voices become faint, their names are forgotten and their stories are buried beneath the weight of conviction.
Whenever I enter a court registry to obtain a Certified True Copy of a judgment or other court records, and I see the registers and case files arranged in orderly rows upon the shelves, my heart is deeply stirred.
Each file contains a life.
Each register contains a story.
Each judgment carries consequences that may continue for decades.
Whenever I begin to read those records, it is as though I hear a voice crying in the wilderness:
“Justice! Justice!! Justice for the oppressed!”
Sometimes, however, I realise that the loudest cry heard before God may not be the voice of the prisoner. It may be the voice of the prisoner’s mother or father—the cry of parents who go to bed every night carrying the burden of a child behind prison walls.
The prisoner may have become accustomed to suffering. He may have lost the strength to cry or surrendered himself to despair. Yet somewhere outside the prison walls, an aged mother is still praying. A father is still asking questions. A wife is still waiting. Children are still wondering when their parent will return home.
Those voices may never appear in the official proceedings of the court, but they rise before the throne of God.
*WHEN ONE JUDGE HEARS* *ANOTHER VOICE*
Sometimes, in the midst of a majority judgment, one judge hears what others have not heard.
One judge sees the doubt that others have overlooked. One judge identifies a weakness in the evidence and refuses to follow the majority merely for the sake of uniformity.
That judge may stand alone. The opinion may not carry the day. The accused may still be convicted, and the appeal may still be dismissed.
_Nevertheless, the dissenting judgment remains in the record—a lonely voice in the wilderness, waiting for a future generation to listen.
_
A dissenting judgment is the opinion of a judge who disagrees with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court. It does not ordinarily determine the immediate outcome of the case, but it remains permanently within the judicial record.
A majority judgment may bring a case to an end while leaving important questions unanswered. A dissenting judgment may preserve another judicial answer to those questions.
It may expose weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, identify a legal principle that has been wrongly applied, question the reliability of a confession, draw attention to contradictions in the testimony of witnesses or warn that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been satisfied.
The fact that several judges agree does not automatically make their conclusion infallible. In the same way, the fact that one judge disagrees does not necessarily make that judge wrong.
Judges are human beings, and human beings may honestly differ in their interpretation of the facts, the evidence and the law.
In criminal justice, such disagreement deserves special attention because the consequences of error may be irreversible. A person may lose liberty, spend decades in prison or be sentenced to death.
Where one member of an appellate panel finds that the evidence is unsafe, that the requirements of the law have not been satisfied or that the conviction should not stand, that disagreement should not be treated as an insignificant footnote.
It may be a warning.
It may be an invitation to examine the record again.
It may be the first judicial recognition that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
*THE CASE OF OLUSOLA* *ADEPETU*
The case of Olusola Adepetu v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC.176/1997, reported as (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185 and (1998) 7 SC (Pt. I) 117, demonstrates how a dissenting judgment may become a powerful instrument of lawful advocacy.
Olusola Adepetu was convicted and sentenced to death in connection with the death of his girlfriend, Miss Ranti Moradeyo.
The case became widely associated in public discussion with ritual killing, although the medical evidence showed that no part of the deceased’s body had been removed.
His appeal eventually reached the Supreme Court. On 10 July 1998, the majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed his conviction. However, the dissenting opinion preserved an alternative judicial examination of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.
When the Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation began examining the case, many people were unwilling to listen. The majority judgments appeared to have brought the matter to a final conclusion.
However, the dissenting judgment drew attention to important weaknesses in the case, including the medical evidence. What had previously been dismissed as the argument of an advocate was now supported by the independent reasoning of a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The dissent did not automatically reverse the judgment or establish his innocence. It did, however, confirm that the concerns raised about the evidence were not merely emotional objections from an outside advocate. A Justice of the Supreme Court had also examined the record and reached a different conclusion.
The dissent became a lawful instrument of advocacy.
It became the lawful weapon with which we confronted a long-held public opinion.
After spending twenty-six years in prison, Olusola Adepetu eventually regained his freedom on 16 October 2016.
The majority judgment ended the appeal, but the dissenting judgment opened another chapter in the search for justice. The case could travel no higher within the judicial system, but the dissent remained alive in the court record and became a foundation for lawful advocacy, public reconsideration and eventual mercy.
*THE CASE OF SUNDAY JACKSON*
A more recent illustration can be found in Sunday Jackson v. The State, Supreme Court Appeal No. SC/CR/1026/2022.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment on 7 March 2025. By a majority decision, it upheld Sunday Jackson’s conviction and death sentence for culpable homicide punishable with death. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju delivered a dissenting judgment and would have allowed the appeal.
The case arose from a violent encounter on farmland. Jackson maintained that he had been attacked with a dagger, that he disarmed his attacker during the struggle and that he acted in self-defence.
The majority concluded that, after Jackson had disarmed his attacker, the immediate danger had ended and that the force he subsequently used was excessive.
Justice Ogunwumiju disagreed. Her dissent preserved another judicial interpretation of the evidence and the law. She considered the realities confronting a person already involved in a violent and life-threatening struggle and concluded that the circumstances supported Jackson’s plea of self-defence.
Although the dissent did not determine the immediate outcome of the appeal, it kept the legal and moral questions surrounding the conviction alive. It provided a strong foundation for continuing public advocacy and appeals for executive mercy.
On 23 December 2025, the Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, granted Sunday Jackson a state pardon after he had spent more than a decade in custody.
The dissent did not itself open the prison gate. The formal act that secured his freedom was executive mercy. Nevertheless, the dissent helped preserve the questions that advocacy later carried before the public and the appropriate authorities.
That is one of the enduring purposes of dissent: it ensures that the judgment which prevailed is not the only judicial voice preserved for history.
Olusola Adepetu gained freedom after twenty-six years.
Sunday Jackson gained freedom after more than a decade.
In both cases, dissent preserved a judicial voice upon which sustained advocacy could build.
*WHY DISSENT MUST BE ENCOURAGED*
Dissent should be encouraged within the judiciary, particularly in difficult criminal cases where the evidence, reasoning or application of the law is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation.
The majority will ultimately have its way because judicial decisions are determined by the greater number. However, the fact that the majority controls the outcome should not prevent each member of the panel from undertaking a critical and independent examination of the record.
Where several judges are considering the same appeal, each judge must be free to examine the evidence from another perspective, question assumptions that others may have accepted, identify contradictions that may have been overlooked and determine whether the prosecution truly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Such independence should not be regarded as rebellion, disloyalty or an attack upon fellow judges. It should be recognised as an expression of judicial courage, intellectual honesty and freedom of conscience.
A judge who dissents does not necessarily claim superior wisdom over the majority. The judge simply preserves another line of reasoning for the record.
That reasoning may later assist a higher court, future judges, legal scholars, defence counsel, Attorneys-General, Boards of Mercy, innocence organisations or other lawful authorities examining whether justice was truly done.
The absence of dissent in every case may create the impression that all members of the court reached precisely the same conclusion without uncertainty. Yet difficult criminal cases frequently contain conflicting evidence, questionable confessions, doubtful identification, missing witnesses, incomplete medical evidence or unresolved contradictions.
In such circumstances, independent judicial reflection should be welcomed.
Encouraging principled dissent preserves the collective wisdom of the judiciary. It ensures that the official record contains not only the reasoning that prevailed but also the strongest argument against it.
The majority judgment determines the immediate fate of the case. The dissenting judgment preserves the possibility that another interpretation may be wiser, safer and more consistent with justice.
True judicial harmony does not mean that every judge must think alike. It means that judges may disagree respectfully, reason independently and remain united in their commitment to justice.
*DISSENT AND THE INTELLECTUAL LABOUR OF* *DEFENCE COUNSEL*
A principled dissent also preserves the intellectual labour of defence counsel.
In many criminal proceedings, counsel may present brilliant arguments arising directly from the record, only to have those submissions rejected by the majority.
The lawyer must bow respectfully and say:
“ *As the Court pleases.”*
Yet the lawyer may leave the courtroom carrying the pain of unanswered questions and the burden of knowing that another person’s liberty or life is at stake.
A dissenting judgment may bring relief to that professional and intellectual pain. It may confirm that the submissions were not empty, frivolous or misplaced. It may demonstrate that at least one member of the court carefully considered the arguments and found sufficient reason to disagree with the majority.
The dissent therefore preserves not only the conscience of the judge and the voice of the accused but also the intellectual contribution of the lawyer who stood in defence of liberty.
A dissenting judgment may not open the prison gate on the day it is delivered.
But it can preserve the key that may one day open that gate.
The dissent gives the accused a voice. It gives the judge freedom of conscience. It recognises the intellectual labour of defence counsel. It preserves the wisdom and credibility of the judiciary.
Above all, it gives future generations an opportunity to discover that the argument which failed yesterday may contain the truth required for justice tomorrow.
A dissenting judgment is therefore sometimes more than a minority opinion.
It is the lonely voice in the wilderness crying:
“Examine the record again. Do not allow finality to bury the truth. Justice has not yet finished speaking.”
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This publication is only an excerpt from the full chapter.
The complete chapter develops twelve principal arguments on the significance of dissenting judgments in criminal justice, their limitations, their value to the judiciary and their potential role in identifying and correcting miscarriages of justice.
The full chapter is reserved for publication in my forthcoming book:
Miscarriages of Justice: A Global Injustice
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
Should dissenting judgments be more strongly encouraged in difficult criminal appeals, particularly where the life or liberty of an accused person is at stake?
Have you encountered a case in which a dissenting judgment later proved wiser than the majority judgment?
Please read, reflect and drop your opinion.
Do you know someone who should read this? Please share it with them.
Pastor Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi, CRJ
Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation
ABOUT THE ORGANISATION
Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation (CJMR) is a grassroots organisation dedicated to advocating for inmates who may have been wrongfully convicted across custodial centres in South-West Nigeria.
Through case review, access to court records, legal advocacy, public awareness, petitions and rehabilitation support, CJMR works to ensure that credible claims of injustice are not forgotten.
Website: www.cjmr.com.ng
Telephone: +234 803 048 8093
REFERENCES
1. Sunday Jackson v. The State: dissenting opinion of Ogunwumiju, JSC. View source
2.
2. Report on the pardon granted to Sunday Jackson in December 2025. View source
